land cruiser crash safety?

[Madtiger]

Just off topic........but if you have aftermarket bumper and you get into car crash and it is YOUR fault.......and if there is injury/death in the OTHER car.......then can you be sued for putting on a dangerous un-regulated (steel) bumper and causing undue/excessive bodily harm to the other occupant(s)???

And will your car insurance abandon you because of aftermarket parts that may/may not have lead to excessive harm?

 

[Markuson]

Just off topic........but if you have aftermarket bumper and you get into car crash and it is YOUR fault.......and if there is injury/death in the OTHER car.......then can you be sued for putting on a dangerous un-regulated (steel) bumper and causing undue/excessive bodily harm to the other occupant(s)???

And will your car insurance abandon you because of aftermarket parts that may/may not have lead to excessive harm?

Probably a good question to pose to your insurance guy...

 

[SWUtah]

All this rollover talk makes me even happier I have AHC and dont have to ride around lifted all the time, only when I need it. Also over 50 mph the car drops almost an inch for an even lower stance at speed.

I did 360s at over 50 mph on a flooded interstate couple years ago in my LX 570 and went off the highway sideways down an embankment into a muddy median strip and it was solid as a rock never felt like it was going to flip over.

 

[ceb]

I wonder how many folks have been killed or seriously injured because a coffee tumbler, bottle or can they were drinking from (or holding in front of the steering wheel) smashed into their face by an expanding airbag. Seriously wonder, because it would be pretty violent...

That was one of the reasons that we went to the newer airbags in the late 90's. The original airbags went "boom" when a sensor was triggered and would deploy at full force. People sitting to close were often badly injured or killed by the airbag (I have some stats somewhere) - I recall a passenger having a nose broken and driven into her brain and numerous fatal injuries to unbelted occupants.

While people are still killed by flying objects, very few are killed by the actual airbag any more.

 

[ceb]

I agree that steel bumpers likely won't make the truck safer, and there is a chance they will make it less safe. But it is worth noting that ARB does actually undergo crash testing of their bumpers (which is what is meant by the first sentence in your quote from their website).

I am putting an ARB bumper on my LX, but I have no illusions that I am becoming safer. My hope is that I am about as safe as I was before, but if putting a steel bumper on the front would make the truck safer, Toyota/Lexus would have done it. But I do think there's value in going with a company like ARB that has actually done crash testing and made a conscious effort to replicate things like crush rates.

ARB appears to imply that they do crash testing, but I've seen no evidence of that. What cars did they crash test?

ARB does not have the budget for this. Each crash test costs upwards of $100k plus the cost of the vehicle - and legally no part of the crash tested vehicle can be resold, so you're looking at $200k or so for each crash test. Since ARB does not have access to the technical data from Toyota regarding the specific parameters of the airbag systems and programming, they'd need to crash test each MY separately and test each of the various models.

If they actually did crash tests, then they'd have the videos all over their website because that would set them apart from every other aftermarket company.

This isn't intended to imply that ARB (or anyone else) is making an unsafe product, but there is no way that we'll know haw the airbag system will function until somebody crashes it.

Finally, think about what I said earlier. If the crush rate of the ARB bumper is the same as the OE bumper, then what good is it? Aside from looks and approach angle, there cannot be an advantage (if the "crush rate" is identical - which it cannot be).

This stuff was my life for 20+ years and I'm still pretty passionate about safety.

 

[White Stripe]

ARB appears to imply that they do crash testing, but I've seen no evidence of that. What cars did they crash test?

ARB does not have the budget for this. Each crash test costs upwards of $100k plus the cost of the vehicle - and legally no part of the crash tested vehicle can be resold, so you're looking at $200k or so for each crash test. Since ARB does not have access to the technical data from Toyota regarding the specific parameters of the airbag systems and programming, they'd need to crash test each MY separately and test each of the various models.

If they actually did crash tests, then they'd have the videos all over their website because that would set them apart from every other aftermarket company.

This isn't intended to imply that ARB (or anyone else) is making an unsafe product, but there is no way that we'll know haw the airbag system will function until somebody crashes it.

Finally, think about what I said earlier. If the crush rate of the ARB bumper is the same as the OE bumper, then what good is it? Aside from looks and approach angle, there cannot be an advantage (if the "crush rate" is identical - which it cannot be).

This stuff was my life for 20+ years and I'm still pretty passionate about safety.

Quote I found online from a arb rep...






Hi guys, most of you will be aware that ARB was a pioneer amongst aftermarket manufacturers when we performed actual crash testing on a 100 Series LandCruiser back in 1997, in order to prove the air bag compatibility of our bars.



Some 17 years on, I think most of you would be interested to know that we recently purchased a brand new Ford Ranger, fitted an ARB bar and handed it over to ANCAP for testing. You’ll be pleased to know that results proved the fitting of the ARB deluxe combination bar did not affect the ANCAP 5 star rating of the PX Ranger for occupant protection.



Whilst this is obviously not directly relevant to the FJ Cruiser, it certainly highlights the lengths we go to to ensure our bars meet or exceed all of the relevant design and safety requirements in Australia. As has been mentioned, this is an expensive exercise considering the cost of both the vehicle and the testing.

For those of you with an appetite for detail, please read on regarding the current requirements for ANCAP, Australian Standards, Australian Design Rules and air bag compatibility, and how ARB addresses each category.

The Australasian New Car Assessment Program run by ANCAP Australasia Ltd performs crash tests and new vehicles are awarded or deducted points based on a combination of test categories and scientific criteria. All vehicles are assessed under identical testing standards and conditions. Following crash tests, data is gathered and assessed using internationally recognised protocols and star-ratings are determined for the vehicle. Points are also awarded if the vehicle is fitted with safety features such as Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) Electronic Stability Control (ESC) and seat belt reminders.

Vehicles are usually tested by ANCAP in their production line condition and without accessories such as bull bars. Due to the publicity around the possible but untested effect bull bars may have on ANCAP ratings, ARB as a market leader, has taken the step of submitting a vehicle fitted with an ARB bull bar to ANCAP for testing to ensure compatibility. ANCAP only rates the safety of vehicles. As a vehicle accessory, the bull bar itself is not approved or rated by ANCAP. ANCAP’s testing demonstrated that the fitment of the ARB bull bar did not affect the vehicle’s 5 Star ANCAP rating.

Australian Standards and Australian Design Rules
ARB bars are specifically designed to comply with relevant Australian Design Rules (ADR) and Australian Standard AS4876.1-2002.

The objective of the standard is to provide manufacturers with performance requirements for Vehicle Frontal Protection Systems (VFPS) and address issues including:

• Applicable ADR requirements
• Road user protection requirements
• Test method, marking and packaging

AS 4876.1-2002 does not address the issue of VFPS compatibility with Vehicle Occupant Protection Systems (eg air bag triggering). The Standard applies to the design and construction of VFPS for motor vehicles up to and including 3500kg GVM covering a number of different categories.

Introduced September 2002 the first Australian Standard for Motor Vehicle Frontal Protection Systems was published. A bull bar that complies with the standard has been designed to offer at least a minimum degree of protection to road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and other vehicle occupants. The Standard is applicable to VFPS for new model vehicles first produced after 1st January 2003.

• Lighting regulations eg the bull bar must not obscure the headlights or any other external lighting
• Occupant crash protection regulations
• Sharp edges and protrusions. Also influenced by individual state roadworthy regulations
• Anchorages / fitment
• Design and profile
• ADR 42 External or Internal Protrusions. ADR 69 full frontal impact occupant protection
• ADR 72 dynamic side impact occupant protection
• ADR 73 offset frontal impact protection

Air Bag Compatibility
With an air bag equipped four wheel drive vehicle, it is essential that the vehicle's crush rate and air bag triggering is not altered when a bull bar is installed. ARB assesses each vehicle's frontal crush characteristics and replicates the crush rate into the design of each air bag compatible bull bar and its mounting system. This method enables engineers to achieve maximum possible vehicle and passenger protection without affecting the crash pulse. ARB has invested heavily in vehicle crash barrier tests to validate the performance and compliance of its air bag compatible bull bars.

Vehicles fitted with an airbag (or manufactured to comply with ADR 69 - Full Frontal Impact Occupant Protection or both ADR 69 and ADR 73 - Offset Frontal Impact Protection) can only be fitted with a bull bar which has been demonstrated by the bull bar manufacturer not to adversely affect compliance with the ADRs or interfere with the critical air bag timing mechanism. ARB’s bull bars meet these requirements.

In Summary, with an ARB bar fitted to a modern vehicle, you have the best of both worlds, with vastly better protection in animal impacts, plus the security of knowing that the vehicle’s intrinsic safety in severe accidents is not compromised.

 

[MikeVpdx503]

Probably a good question to pose to your insurance guy...

And/or a competent attorney versed in personal injury and product liability. IMO, the safe answer is “yes” one can be sued, for anything anyone can think of in this day and age. Also safe to say that most insurance companies will deny a claim that is outside of standard coverage if they can.

 

[Markuson]

And/or a competent attorney versed in personal injury and product liability. IMO, the safe answer is “yes” one can be sued, for anything anyone can think of in this day and age. Also safe to say that most insurance companies will deny a claim that is outside of standard coverage if they can.

That’s why I’d skip the attorney and head straight for insurance. If sued...it will be the insurance company they go after...

I’ve seen a lot of post-accident reports over the years from guys with bull bars...and so far, none of them were followed by lawsuit stories based on bumper style.

Not saying it doesn’t happen. Anything can. Just saying...it’s not something common at all in 11 years on mud.

 

[ceb]

Quote I found online from a arb rep...






Hi guys, most of you will be aware that ARB was a pioneer amongst aftermarket manufacturers when we performed actual crash testing on a 100 Series LandCruiser back in 1997, in order to prove the air bag compatibility of our bars.



Some 17 years on, I think most of you would be interested to know that we recently purchased a brand new Ford Ranger, fitted an ARB bar and handed it over to ANCAP for testing. You’ll be pleased to know that results proved the fitting of the ARB deluxe combination bar did not affect the ANCAP 5 star rating of the PX Ranger for occupant protection.



Whilst this is obviously not directly relevant to the FJ Cruiser, it certainly highlights the lengths we go to to ensure our bars meet or exceed all of the relevant design and safety requirements in Australia. As has been mentioned, this is an expensive exercise considering the cost of both the vehicle and the testing.

For those of you with an appetite for detail, please read on regarding the current requirements for ANCAP, Australian Standards, Australian Design Rules and air bag compatibility, and how ARB addresses each category.

The Australasian New Car Assessment Program run by ANCAP Australasia Ltd performs crash tests and new vehicles are awarded or deducted points based on a combination of test categories and scientific criteria. All vehicles are assessed under identical testing standards and conditions. Following crash tests, data is gathered and assessed using internationally recognised protocols and star-ratings are determined for the vehicle. Points are also awarded if the vehicle is fitted with safety features such as Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) Electronic Stability Control (ESC) and seat belt reminders.

Vehicles are usually tested by ANCAP in their production line condition and without accessories such as bull bars. Due to the publicity around the possible but untested effect bull bars may have on ANCAP ratings, ARB as a market leader, has taken the step of submitting a vehicle fitted with an ARB bull bar to ANCAP for testing to ensure compatibility. ANCAP only rates the safety of vehicles. As a vehicle accessory, the bull bar itself is not approved or rated by ANCAP. ANCAP’s testing demonstrated that the fitment of the ARB bull bar did not affect the vehicle’s 5 Star ANCAP rating.

Australian Standards and Australian Design Rules
ARB bars are specifically designed to comply with relevant Australian Design Rules (ADR) and Australian Standard AS4876.1-2002.

The objective of the standard is to provide manufacturers with performance requirements for Vehicle Frontal Protection Systems (VFPS) and address issues including:

• Applicable ADR requirements
• Road user protection requirements
• Test method, marking and packaging

AS 4876.1-2002 does not address the issue of VFPS compatibility with Vehicle Occupant Protection Systems (eg air bag triggering). The Standard applies to the design and construction of VFPS for motor vehicles up to and including 3500kg GVM covering a number of different categories.

Introduced September 2002 the first Australian Standard for Motor Vehicle Frontal Protection Systems was published. A bull bar that complies with the standard has been designed to offer at least a minimum degree of protection to road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and other vehicle occupants. The Standard is applicable to VFPS for new model vehicles first produced after 1st January 2003.

• Lighting regulations eg the bull bar must not obscure the headlights or any other external lighting
• Occupant crash protection regulations
• Sharp edges and protrusions. Also influenced by individual state roadworthy regulations
• Anchorages / fitment
• Design and profile
• ADR 42 External or Internal Protrusions. ADR 69 full frontal impact occupant protection
• ADR 72 dynamic side impact occupant protection
• ADR 73 offset frontal impact protection

Air Bag Compatibility
With an air bag equipped four wheel drive vehicle, it is essential that the vehicle's crush rate and air bag triggering is not altered when a bull bar is installed. ARB assesses each vehicle's frontal crush characteristics and replicates the crush rate into the design of each air bag compatible bull bar and its mounting system. This method enables engineers to achieve maximum possible vehicle and passenger protection without affecting the crash pulse. ARB has invested heavily in vehicle crash barrier tests to validate the performance and compliance of its air bag compatible bull bars.

Vehicles fitted with an airbag (or manufactured to comply with ADR 69 - Full Frontal Impact Occupant Protection or both ADR 69 and ADR 73 - Offset Frontal Impact Protection) can only be fitted with a bull bar which has been demonstrated by the bull bar manufacturer not to adversely affect compliance with the ADRs or interfere with the critical air bag timing mechanism. ARB’s bull bars meet these requirements.

In Summary, with an ARB bar fitted to a modern vehicle, you have the best of both worlds, with vastly better protection in animal impacts, plus the security of knowing that the vehicle’s intrinsic safety in severe accidents is not compromised.

Interesting. I'll have to do more research on this and keep the board posted.

 

[Markuson]

Disclaimer:
I do not claim ANY level of authority here.
This is something I experienced...
...so I am posing the question:

Personally, I wonder that perhapsl the crumple zones on the ARB might be TOO easily crumpled. Like unnecessarily so...

Why I wonder—
—On my 100 series, I had the lightest of light bumps against a guy in front of me. -I mean...not even enough to feel it. Only knew because I could *hear* it...BARELY.

Got out, and the bumper had done this:

Closer:

Having ...BARELY made any impact on the higher bumper of a pickup in front of me (Did no damage to that bumper at all... not even a scuff).... -But it squished mine inward from top middle. Not the tube...but the top, just above the fairlead on the main bumper steel. Top of crumple zone inward...making the wings and entire poi t upward in front...downward at the wings (shown above).

Was rather disappointing...
I get crumple zone benefits and all...
...but I wonder if some may be TOO “crumply”?

What do y’all think?

 

[bloc]

They were probably trying to emulate the crash performance of a plastic cover and aluminum crash bar.. that often pops back out like a Rubbermaid trash can after a minor accident, even if there is damage to the crash structure. Nothing to hide the damage on an ARB.

 

[SWUtah]

All his info would make you never want to install these bumpers for normal road use maybe they’re good for mitigating damage during off-road but they’re not worth it for anything other than Looks for on road

 

[Markuson]

All his info would make you never want to install these bumpers for normal road use maybe they’re good for mitigating damage during off-road but they’re not worth it for anything other than Looks for on road

I dunno...
I think that’s true for some models but not for some others.
My TJM T13 is a totally different experience than what my photos referred to above (Sahara Bar). Super strong and shrugs off impacts. The other side, though, (as Taco pointed out), the T13 doesn’t have crumple zones like the ARB. That’s good or bad depending on the scenario. I would have had to replace it three times now if it wasn’t as stout as it is.

 

[zackro]

ARB appears to imply that they do crash testing, but I've seen no evidence of that. What cars did they crash test?

ARB does not have the budget for this. Each crash test costs upwards of $100k plus the cost of the vehicle - and legally no part of the crash tested vehicle can be resold, so you're looking at $200k or so for each crash test. Since ARB does not have access to the technical data from Toyota regarding the specific parameters of the airbag systems and programming, they'd need to crash test each MY separately and test each of the various models.

If they actually did crash tests, then they'd have the videos all over their website because that would set them apart from every other aftermarket company.

This isn't intended to imply that ARB (or anyone else) is making an unsafe product, but there is no way that we'll know haw the airbag system will function until somebody crashes it.

Finally, think about what I said earlier. If the crush rate of the ARB bumper is the same as the OE bumper, then what good is it? Aside from looks and approach angle, there cannot be an advantage (if the "crush rate" is identical - which it cannot be).

This stuff was my life for 20+ years and I'm still pretty passionate about safety.

They don’t just imply that they do actual crash testing. They explicitly said it in the quote from their website you posted.

 

[ceb]

All his info would make you never want to install these bumpers for normal road use maybe they’re good for mitigating damage during off-road but they’re not worth it for anything other than Looks for on road

Disclaimer:
I do not claim ANY level of authority here.
This is something I experienced...
...so I am posing the question:

Personally, I wonder that perhapsl the crumple zones on the ARB might be TOO easily crumpled. Like unnecessarily so...

Why I wonder—
—On my 100 series, I had the lightest of light bumps against a guy in front of me. -I mean...not even enough to feel it. Only knew because I could *hear* it...BARELY.

Got out, and the bumper had done this:

View attachment 2134969

Closer:
View attachment 2134970

Having ...BARELY made any impact on the higher bumper of a pickup in front of me (Did no damage to that bumper at all... not even a scuff).... -But it squished mine inward from top middle. Not the tube...but the top, just above the fairlead on the main bumper steel. Top of crumple zone inward...making the wings and entire poi t upward in front...downward at the wings (shown above).

Was rather disappointing...
I get crumple zone benefits and all...
...but I wonder if some may be TOO “crumply”?

What do y’all think?

You raise a good point (and another poster validated it) that with the onset of new generation of airbags, we saw the demise of "strong" bumpers. Manufacturers get around the problem that you describe (the misalignment following a minor impact) by using flexible bumper covers that spring back following a minor impact (aside from the bumper covers on older Camrys that look like somebody punched the corner).

When we first started considering "10mph bumpers", the steel chromed bumpers were attached by shock absorbers. This required a gap between the body and the bumper that was often covered by a flexible plastic.

The first airbag systems worked fine with those bumpers as it was merely like an on/off switch to activate the airbag. With the move to newer airbags and the use of computers to calculate if and how the airbag should deploy, there was also a need to redesign the bumpers and more studies went into crumple zones.

Your post reinforces my earlier statement - you can design a solid bumper that wards off damage or you can design a solid looking bumper that has similar characteristics to the OE bumper and works with the airbag system - but you can't have it both ways.

That said, pg 61 of the ARB brochure speaks to crash testing a Ford Ranger and "others". While Australian crash tests hold no water in the US, this does show that they have done far more research than others - but no physical testing on a North American LC is indicated. Accordingly, I apologize for my "no testing" comment earlier, but continue to believe that an aftermarket bumper either does nothing but look cool (ie complies with airbag systems) or protects the vehicle but not the occupants.

Modern cars are designed to sacrifice themselves to save the occupants. Aftermarket bumpers might make the car stronger and pass on the energy to the occupant. Anyone who has been in an accident and walked away can verify that modern cars do a great job protecting the occupants - do you really want to risk that?

 

[bloc]

I’ve been to dozens of serious accidents involving modern vehicles. It is STUNNING what people walk away from these days, very often totally unharmed other than seatbelt or airbag burns. I have pictures of wrecked cars with unharmed occupants that are unbelievable.

I’m in no hurry to alter how my modern vehicles deal with these situations.

Oh, and wear a damn helmet (!!!!) and proper jacket, pants, gloves, and boots on your motorcycle!!

 

[Markuson]

but continue to believe that an aftermarket bumper either does nothing but look cool (ie complies with airbag systems) or protects the vehicle but not the occupants.

I think part of this is a matter of intended purpose.
I would contend that there is far more going on (for some of us anyway) than simply trying to look cool...though I’m sure many choices are made that might be as simple as that for some.

I can’t speak for anyone but myself though...
-For me personally, my desire for a full bull bar has three main purposes:

1. So a struck animal is more likely to stay at the front of my vehicle than fly full force through my windshield (heavy bars tend to at least partially “catch” or partially “hook” at least part of the animal as it’s momentum wraps both above and below the top bar. -Like running to catch a home-run ball on a little-league field.....and hitting a 3 or 4-foot/tall rail. -While you might still end up going over it, the fact that your lower body hits and partially catches on it means that your full force won’t smash a spectator very hard on the other side.

2. Improve my chances of a fully-functional vehicle in the boonies after a strike. This has already proven true for me....and the bumper paid for itself several times over, and saved the trip.

3. Winch mounting (possible without a bull bar, but a priority it also serves)

Downside we can all agree on: It’s not optimal for the ultimate energy absorption in every scenario. For certain scenarios, it’s a negative.

OK.
We agree on that.

But neither are 40 Series or 70 Series, and we don’t chide drivers of 40’s as being irresponsible or foolish (not that anyone is hurling that at poeple here).

Just today, I passed an older couple in a beautiful 1957 Cadillac. I think we can all agree that by driving their Cadillac, they are NOT employing modern safety standards. They are absolutely driving at greater risk to themselves, just like the guy driving the 40 Series is, because modern crush zones simply didn’t exist for those years, Heck, they don’t have even a single airbag... Not even a shoulder seatbelt! But we don’t slam them as cool-hearty. It’s a choice. A trade-off.

My contention would be that these trade-offs are decisions we all get to make, and to reduce it to mere coolness is not a complete picture.

While a heavier bumper is certainly a compromise in some scenarios, it can also serve other valuable purposes that are valid. So to me, this is far from a black or white issue.

I am personally glad my TJM, for example, let me continue our three week trip despite a significant deer strike. I’m clad that my rear bumper saved the entird right side of my vehicle during that same trip while navigating an obstacle. I also used my winch on the same trip by necessity. All three of those things are far more beneficial that simply “looking cool.” It has served me well in the exact purposes I prioritized.

Finally....
-I would contend I am still FAR safer than the 40 guy, the couple in the old Caddy...etc. Even though one area is a trade-off...my 200 with its 11 airbags, traction control, ABS, excellent suspension, etc etc is still FAR more safe than the 40...the Caddy...a motorcycle or quad....even though my bumper is stout and imperfect in the crumple department.

Anyway... My 1.5 cents...

 

[ceb]

I think part of this is a matter of intended purpose.
I would contend that there is far more going on (for some of us anyway) than simply trying to look cool...though I’m sure many choices are made that might be as simple as that for some.

I can’t speak for anyone but myself though...
-For me personally, my desire for a full bull bar has three main purposes:

1. So a struck animal is more likely to stay at the front of my vehicle than fly full force through my windshield (heavy bars tend to at least partially “catch” or partially “hook” at least part of the animal as it’s momentum wraps both above and below the top bar. -Like running to catch a home-run ball on a little-league field.....and hitting a 3 or 4-foot/tall rail. -While you might still end up going over it, the fact that your lower body hits and partially catches on it means that your full force won’t smash a spectator very hard on the other side.

2. Improve my chances of a fully-functional vehicle in the boonies after a strike. This has already proven true for me....and the bumper paid for itself several times over, and saved the trip.

3. Winch mounting (possible without a bull bar, but a priority it also serves)

Downside we can all agree on: It’s not optimal for the ultimate energy absorption in every scenario. For certain scenarios, it’s a negative.

OK.
We agree on that.

But neither are 40 Series or 70 Series, and we don’t chide drivers of 40’s as being irresponsible or foolish (not that anyone is hurling that at poeple here).

Just today, I passed an older couple in a beautiful 1957 Cadillac. I think we can all agree that by driving their Cadillac, they are NOT employing modern safety standards. They are absolutely driving at greater risk to themselves, just like the guy driving the 40 Series is, because modern crush zones simply didn’t exist for those years, Heck, they don’t have even a single airbag... Not even a shoulder seatbelt! But we don’t slam them as cool-hearty. It’s a choice. A trade-off.

My contention would be that these trade-offs are decisions we all get to make, and to reduce it to mere coolness is not a complete picture.

While a heavier bumper is certainly a compromise in some scenarios, it can also serve other valuable purposes that are valid. So to me, this is far from a black or white issue.

I am personally glad my TJM, for example, let me continue our three week trip despite a significant deer strike. I’m clad that my rear bumper saved the entird right side of my vehicle during that same trip while navigating an obstacle. I also used my winch on the same trip by necessity. All three of those things are far more beneficial that simply “looking cool.” It has served me well in the exact purposes I prioritized.

Finally....
-I would contend I am still FAR safer than the 40 guy, the couple in the old Caddy...etc. Even though one area is a trade-off...my 200 with its 11 airbags, traction control, ABS, excellent suspension, etc etc is still FAR more safe than the 40...the Caddy...a motorcycle or quad....even though my bumper is stout and imperfect in the crumple department.

Anyway... My 1.5 cents...

Absolutely agree - as long as you know where you are. If the guy in the old Caddy thinks he is as safe as the driver in a new Caddy, then he is kidding himself. The driver of the 40 knows that the car isn't as safe (hopefully) and you have evaluated your needs and understand what the downsides are.

If everyone did a cost/benefit analysis before they bought stuff that "looked cool/tactical/solid", then many aftermarket places will go out of business.

I've always said that buying stuff for any reason is perfectly fine as long as you are honest to yourself about those reasons. Getting back to this thread, telling yourself without research that a steel bumper will make you safer is a bad reason, doing the analysis like you did is a good reason.

 

[bloc]

Keep in mind this thread started with the question of how a 200 would do in a serious accident, and with concern over what happened to the family in the original story.

Yes a bull-barred 200 is probably still safer than a 40, but likely not as safe as a stock 200. As ceb said, as long as people are honest with themselves about the results of their decisions and why they made them, rock on.

 

[zackro]

I agree with the last few posts: these bumpers aren't making anyone safer in most scenarios, and my goal in having one is honestly to look cool and have a base for a winch if I decide to add one. I'm honest about that, and I don't feel any shame in it. I think the odds of dying or being seriously hurt in a head-on collision in either a 100 or 200 series are quite low anyway, so an incremental increase in those odds are honestly not a big enough factor for me to weigh them heavily. That is why I went with an ARB, though.

Rollovers are a bigger risk to me, but I still have a small lift and plus sized tires. I do think people need to be honest about these things and recognize that they are increasing their chances of serious injury or death (although possibly only slightly) in exchange for either off-road functionality or appearances (or both). We exchange small increases in our chances of dying for vain reasons all the time, though, so I'm not making an argument against it.